tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/vote-remain-28051/articlesVote remain – The Conversation2019-04-03T08:56:39Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1136862019-04-03T08:56:39Z2019-04-03T08:56:39ZStudy shows how school textbooks in Germany and England present Europe in entirely different ways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265827/original/file-20190326-36279-15tj4a3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to views about Europe, it’s well known that Germany and England differ sharply. <a href="https://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/">Research</a> after the Brexit vote shows that 68% of Germans are in favour of the European Union and only 11% would support withdrawal. Compare this with 54% of UK respondents who are favourable to the EU.</p>
<p>Similarly, during the 2017 general election campaign in Germany, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-of-europe-germans-french-most-in-favor-poll/">nearly one third of Germans</a> backed politician Martin Schulz’s idea for a “United States of Europe” by 2025. The corresponding figure for Britain was just 10%. And it seems these differences might run as deep as the way children are taught about Europe in school – as the findings of our <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/education/research/cresj/news/2019/research-education-eu/">latest research</a> indicate. </p>
<p>We analysed the treatment of the European Union in a sample of social studies and politics textbooks from both Germany and England. And we found that the way Europe is depicted in some English and German textbooks for secondary schools differs considerably. In English books there is less coverage of Europe and a more critical approach compared with the German textbooks. </p>
<p>In the English textbooks, Europe was seen almost exclusively in political terms – with strong emphasis on the EU being a controversial issue. In one book for example, although there are references to the <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights </a> along with the European court and a brief mention of the European Economic Area, most of the limited space given to Europe is about the European Union – and about “different viewpoints on EU membership”. </p>
<p>In the German books there was a very different approach: Europe is seen more expansively and positively with an integrated approach to politics and identity. The German textbooks also had references to Europe being “our historical, cultural and intellectual home”, a “community of values”, and, a place where “enemies became friends”.</p>
<h2>The research</h2>
<p>We looked at four English textbooks and nine German textbooks and compared the way Europe was covered. Overall we found that the textbooks from Germany deal with Europe in much greater detail and with more of a positive angle than those published in England. </p>
<p>We found that Europe not only receives more prominence in German textbooks but is covered with more breadth. Both sets of textbooks place a major focus on the political system of the EU but German books also include economic and cultural dimensions. And a number of German textbooks had separate chapters or sections on the political system of the EU and Europe as a cultural entity. Unlike the English books, some German materials also presented clear anticipated loyalties to Europe. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265828/original/file-20190326-36260-1v8arth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Schoolchildren across Europe are taught different things about the EU.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The project was informed by previous research, particularly, work undertaken by one of the project team which involved interviewing 2,000 young people <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/3/70/htm">across 29 European countries</a>. The project aimed to find out how young people in Europe construct their political identities – which we found often transcend traditional boundaries of state and nation. </p>
<p>But we found that although both the English textbooks and German textbooks largely reflect the prevailing political climate in each country, they don’t necessarily reflect the views of young people. Young people in Germany and England <a href="https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/gdesc2.asp?no=0008">share rather similar views</a> <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/la/book/9783319908748">about Europe</a>. They are committed to certain values (which are seen as both general and European) and although young people are not just accepting of European identity and European loyalty without questions, there is, among both groups – but particularly the Germans – a sense of being European. This is not reflected in English textbooks. </p>
<h2>Young voices</h2>
<p>The range of activities in the German books is also far wider than those provided in the English books. Whereas the German books build on a sense of European identity by providing opportunities for varied student interaction including more work than the English books on advocacy, representation and informed and responsible action.</p>
<p>By contrast, the English books use brief individual reading exercises to consider the pros and cons of European membership. One book for example provides a list of “benefits and costs of EU membership” and then asks students to “design slides or charts to summarise the benefits and costs of EU membership”. The English texts also encouraged students to visit the websites of UK political parties for news on their position on EU membership.</p>
<p>This echos the political context in England, where the debate about Europe is not one concerned with dynamic engagement but one associated with an equally balanced weighing up of pros and cons of membership. And in this way, we found that the nature of the educational activities that are available to teachers and students in our sample of textbooks tends to reflect national narratives. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265834/original/file-20190326-36270-3i6vt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many young people have taken part in anti-Brexit marches up and down the country.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Education in both countries is principally a matter of socialising young people into an established national narrative. This may seem to be easier to justify in Germany where there is a stronger alignment between the views of young people and (according to our textbook analysis) the content of learning resources. But in both countries there are issues about the extent to which schools are the mirror of society and essentially engaged with promoting established views. </p>
<p>It seems then that in both countries, the most contentious issue of the 21st-century – the European Union – is simply being presented as a reflection of the existing national narrative for future generations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alistair Ross is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Szczepek Reed, Eleanor Brown, Geraldine Bengsch, and Ian Davies do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>School textbooks from Germany deal with Europe in much greater detail and with more of a positive angle than those published in England.Ian Davies, Professor in the Department of Education, University of YorkAlistair Ross, Emeritus Professor in the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Metropolitan UniversityBeatrice Szczepek Reed, Professor of Language Education, King's College LondonEleanor Brown, Lecturer in the Department of Education, University of YorkGeraldine Bengsch, German Tutor, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1104612019-01-24T16:03:25Z2019-01-24T16:03:25ZDyson’s move may not be about Brexit – but the timing was bound to fan flames<p>If a private company with around 5,000 employees moved its headquarters overseas a few years ago, it might not have attracted much attention beyond concerns for the local economic impact. But these are no ordinary times. </p>
<p>The announcement that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/dyson-to-move-company-hq-to-singapore">Dyson is switching its HQ</a> from the English county of Wiltshire to Singapore has <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/99153/twitter-reacts-to-dyson-s-singapore-move">provoked a huge reaction</a>. The company was keen to downplay any possible link between the move and Brexit (of which Sir James Dyson is a vocal supporter). Nevertheless, the news has attracted many critics, many of them not typically engrossed with long term corporate strategy.</p>
<p>There are valid reasons to accept Dyson’s statement at face value when understanding why the HQ move makes business sense. While Dyson still experiences a stable level of growth in its established European and American markets, this is dwarfed by a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/dyson-hoovers-up-801m-profit-in-asian-spending-boom">vast sales increase</a> in Asia. </p>
<p>To capitalise on this growing market, the company has already <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377">established Singapore</a> as a production base for its electric cars, along with its assembly work taking place in Malaysia and the Philippines. </p>
<p>Singapore has also <a href="https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/singapore-china-sign-free-trade-agreement-upgrade-10922790">recently agreed</a> a bilateral free trade pact with China, allowing Dyson to enjoy a level of market access that would not be available in the UK or the EU.</p>
<p>Dyson was also quick to allay fears regarding its employees in the UK. As production has largely moved overseas in the last decade, nearly all of its workforce in the UK are employed as scientists or engineers (where the majority of their products are designed and developed). And as the company continues to expand its research activities and significantly invest in graduate careers and academic research, there are no clear signs that the move will affect its economic activity in the UK for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>While this all gives Dyson a defence for a strategic move, it is also easy to understand why this announcement has attracted criticism. First, the timing is notable, in a week when several other companies drew attention for their strategic decisions. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1087770431300472833"}"></div></p>
<p>These include Sony (which is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46968720">moving its European headquarters</a> to the Netherlands), P&O (re-flagging its UK registered English Channel fleet <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/po-post-brexit-plan-to-register-channel-fleet-in-cyprus-11614554">to Cyprus</a>) and Pets at Home (<a href="https://news.sky.com/story/pets-at-home-to-stockpile-up-to-8m-of-products-in-case-of-hard-brexit-11614312">announcing a possible</a> stockpiling of its inventories). </p>
<p>What’s different about these announcements is their explicit link to issues concerning Brexit. This pragmatism was also evident in the CEO of Airbus <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46984229">hinting at relocating</a> the company’s operations. (He was also very blunt about the damage that a no-deal Brexit could potentially cause.) </p>
<h2>Business abhors a vacuum</h2>
<p>While it may be perfectly true that Dyson’s relocation has little to do with Brexit, announcing it when many other businesses are publicly expressing opinions on Brexit (that on the surface appear quite opposed to Sir James’s personal views) means it is inevitable that it will be discussed in the context of the surrounding news.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c-7hb2NCPG0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Another factor gives critics of Brexit further ammunition against Dyson. The move to Singapore appears to highlight the perceived disconnect between Brexit’s most affluent supporters and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/30/no-deal-brexit-would-trigger-lengthy-uk-recession-warns-sp">concerns</a> over average living standards in the immediate aftermath of any Brexit. </p>
<p>For well-known figures such as Dyson, any public support of Brexit can risk accusations of being out of touch with ordinary citizens (ironically, a similar charge to that often levelled at visible Remain campaigners).</p>
<p>Some <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/">polling has shown</a> that the majority of those supporting Brexit fall into the older demographic, generally citing ideological reasons rather than economic ones. The particular danger that business figures such as Dyson face when championing Brexit as an ideology, is that their economic situation will come under scrutiny. This in turn may strengthen perceptions that any economic changes to the country will not personally affect them or their quality of life.<br>
As a result, any comments they give on the state of the economy, such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/dyson-hoovers-up-801m-profit-in-asian-spending-boom">Sir James’s</a> “hope (that the UK economy) will bounce back” in February 2018, can come across as quite glib.</p>
<p>That said, criticism on social media probably means very little to Dyson as a company, which continues to enjoy unrivalled success in the UK and overseas. But this episode shows that business figures (particularly those expressing strong views on Brexit) need to be aware of how much more examination their comments and decisions will attract.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gavin Midgley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Its billionaire boss was a strong supporter of exiting the EU. Now the company is moving its headquarters out of Britain, too.Gavin Midgley, Senior Teaching Fellow in Accounting, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/987292018-06-21T14:20:44Z2018-06-21T14:20:44ZA hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely – according to behavioural economics<p>Gloomy forecasts for the post-Brexit economy, and a psychological tendency to gamble rather than accept certain losses, may boost public support for a giant leap away from the EU – despite the fact that most experts are advising a cautious small step.</p>
<p>Parliamentary rebels have tempered their demands for a vote <a href="https://theconversation.com/tory-rebels-back-down-on-brexit-vote-but-what-does-that-actually-mean-98671">on the final Brexit deal</a> and abandoned an earlier <a href="https://theconversation.com/lords-brexit-defeats-are-forcing-mps-to-face-crucial-choices-96482">House of Lords attempt</a> to keep the UK in the European Economic Area. Attempts to maintain <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-customs-union-uk-eu-theresa-may-tory-deal-rebels-a8394371.html">membership of the customs union</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/may-risks-row-with-brexiters-over-plan-for-single-market-for-goods">single market</a> by Brexit’s opponents have seemingly failed. </p>
<p>But in keeping up pressure to stay as close as possible to the EU, they risk driving Britain further away from it. Anti-Brexiteers now risk colliding with one of the harshest lessons of behavioural economics – once people are determined to leave, any scare about the next step may just prompt them to run further away.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cost-of-brexit-and-how-much-you-should-trust-the-forecasts-explained-by-an-economist-91172">Most independent studies</a> point to bigger economic losses the more the UK distances itself from present EU trade arrangements. So does <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives">the Treasury’s own</a> analysis, unless the UK gains a remarkably generous bespoke deal. </p>
<p>But the same studies also suggest there will be losses even from the smallest step away. And the error around these calculations gets bigger as they move further from present arrangements, so that the gloomier forecasts are also hazier. This allows Leave campaigners to agree with “Remoaners” that an ultra-soft Brexit is worse than remaining – and to draw the opposite conclusion: that only the most radical departure will do. </p>
<h2>Double or nothing</h2>
<p>People are generally risk-averse when it comes to potential gains. They tend to opt for guaranteed receipt of a certain amount (say, £50), rather than the chance to gamble for a larger amount (say, a 50% chance of getting £100) while getting nothing at all if they lose the bet. The expected outcome (to someone who’s risk-neutral) is £50 in both cases. But, as the proverb goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.</p>
<p>By contrast, most people are risk-preferring when it comes to potential losses. Instead of definitely losing £50 they would prefer to gamble on a 50% chance of losing £100 and a 50% chance of not losing anything. Although the mathematically expected loss is £50 in each case, most of us will run the risk of worsening that loss if that brings a comparable chance of escaping it altogether. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224251/original/file-20180621-137725-x4hcr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">£100 on red.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The evidence that people routinely gamble to avoid guaranteed losses, while playing safe with guaranteed gains, was assembled by cognitive psychologists and turned into an elegant “<a href="http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/leadership-and-management/making-decisions/content-section-6.4">Prospect Theory</a>” by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman – who won the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=531">economics Nobel for it in 2002</a>.</p>
<p>An important consequence of this asymmetry is that people may react differently to a choice that is functionally the same, if it is re-framed in terms of losses <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/bias/framing-effect/">rather than gains</a>. You might, for example, prefer the surefire gain of £50 if you perceive the alternative (gaining £100 or £0, with equal probabilities) as a lottery. </p>
<p>But if you are loss-averse, you might also part with £50 – calling it an insurance premium – to avoid risking an equally probable loss of £100 or £0. So, stating post-Brexit outcomes in terms of GDP loss, compared to the status quo, may have worked out to the Brexiteers’ advantage. </p>
<h2>The Remainers’ dilemma</h2>
<p>Faced with a certain loss from the “soft” option, those (the majority) who voted for Brexit will inevitably be drawn towards the “hard” alternative. It might be a huge gamble, but it seems worth taking if it brings some chance of ultimate gain, against the certain loss from a soft Brexit.</p>
<p>While the hard Brexit risk may be very high – with potentially even bigger economic losses, according <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/07/brexit-north-east-west-midlands-hardest-secret-analysis">to leaked government analysis</a> – a bigger break creates room for radically different and rosier scenarios. It’s always possible that, after a transitory tussles with Brussels, a clean break from EU rules sparks a British social and economic renaissance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224252/original/file-20180621-137734-1gybcz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Losing hope?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/97214336@N05/28057544395">Garon S/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This could come from fully embracing <a href="https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/">globalisation and free markets</a> (the preference of those on the Right), or from a return to social, industrial and economic policies <a href="https://briefingsforbrexit.com/">lost to past liberalisation</a> (preferred by those on the Left). These are opposing and incompatible approaches, but they coalesced to swing the referendum in 2016. </p>
<p>For those with no wish to stay, a giant leap with the distant possibility of landing on higher ground will tend to seem much more appealing than a small step that’s bound to lead downhill. And developments since the referendum may be reinforcing a <a href="http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/politics/straight-talking-collides-cyclical-preferences">pattern of preferences</a> by which voters who never wanted to Leave now embrace the “hardest” way of doing so, once they’ve definitely lost the option to Remain. </p>
<h2>Behavioural trouble</h2>
<p>This isn’t the first time that Prospect Theory has loomed behind Brexit-related decisions. The original Leave vote in 2016 can be explained as <a href="http://www.cognitionandculture.net/blog/christophe-heintzs-blog/does-prospect-theory-explain-trump-and-brexit-votes">a battle of gain/loss framing</a>, which the Brexiteers won by exploiting discontent with people’s present situations. </p>
<p>Remainers unsuccessfully tried in 2016 to persuade voters that EU membership brought a net gain – through trade, unrestricted travel and work opportunities. They wanted the UK to stick with these sure gains, rather than gamble on a step into the unknown outside the EU which might result in great loss. </p>
<p>The Leave campaign successfully re-framed EU membership as a sure loss – of money (since the UK is a net contributor), sovereignty (since the EU sets rules) and external links (since the common external tariff blocks the UK from doing its own trade deals). Convinced that they were losing under the current arrangement, many voters saw leaving as a way to avoid this sure loss, even if not entirely believing Brexiteer predictions of instant gains once outside. </p>
<p>So having persuaded a majority of referendum voters that they could only avoid a certain loss by leaving, hard Brexiteers will now exploit the same behavioural trait to propel the UK as far away from the EU as it can go. The risk for Remainers is that by framing the soft Brexit option as damage limitation, they may simply propel people towards the hard alternative – as the only way their decision to Brexit can possibly do them any good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98729/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Shipman receives funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Foundation. </span></em></p>A psychological tendency to gamble rather than accept certain losses, may lead to a surge in support for a harder Brexit.Alan Shipman, Lecturer in Economics, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864902017-11-01T10:48:54Z2017-11-01T10:48:54ZWhat young Britons really think about Brexit and their prospects outside the EU<p>In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, much was made of how devastated young people were by the result. A survey by Lord Ashcroft <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36619342">suggested</a> that over 70% of young people aged 18-24 voted Remain, while almost 60% of over 55s voted to Leave.</p>
<p>In my ongoing research, I’ve found that this view is too simplistic: in practice, young people’s reactions and views are much more diverse and tricky to categorise. </p>
<p>Between March and September 2017, my colleagues and I talked to young people around England about their <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-centres/centres/centre-for-global-youth/being-young-in-brexit-britain">attitudes towards Brexit and aspirations after the referendum</a>. Our fieldwork took us to London, the south coast, the west of England, and greater Manchester. Along the way, we spoke with 73 young people aged between 16 and 29, including university students, sixth formers and further education students, young people in their first jobs, as well as those struggling to find work. </p>
<p>During our interviews, we came across young Brexiteers, who were predominantly male and think the country will be better off outside the EU, as well as Europhiles, often bright middle-class young women, who feel betrayed but still hope to pursue careers in the EU. </p>
<p>But we also found that just as many young people were disinterested in the Brexit referendum and its aftermath. These young people often had little interest in politics, a low level of qualifications, or were more focused on more immediate challenges in their lives, such as trying to find work, homes, or deal with health problems.</p>
<h2>Cosmopolitan youth</h2>
<p>Another widespread assumption about the referendum was that youth support for the Remain campaign owed much to young people’s cosmopolitan and idealistic outlook. Our previous <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468796817723682">research</a> had actually found that young people in Britain are less tolerant of immigration than you might expect and so one of the aims of this new project was to examine whether young people’s attitudes towards Brexit were really driven by idealism and cosmpolitanism. </p>
<p>We found that this was only true of some of the young people we interviewed: just as many voted Remain because they viewed remaining in the EU as the safest option, and the outcome that would have had the least negative impact on their lives. Leavers provided equally varied reasons for their decision, including concerns about democracy, sovereignty, the wastefulness of the EU as well as immigration. Others believed that Brexit would bring greater economic opportunities. </p>
<p>William, a white, middle-class, university-educated Londoner, told us he believes Brexit will not limit his job opportunities: “I voted to vote Leave and take control.” He even persuaded his parents – lifelong Tories – to vote Leave. </p>
<p>Then there was 17-year-old Polly, a middle-class A-level student at a selective school in the west of England. A self-professed Europhile who describes her friends and family as “ardent Remainers”, she still intends to live and work in the EU, but is worried this will be made much harder by Brexit. </p>
<p>By contrast, some of those we spoke to were completely disengaged from the Brexit debate. Take Jason, a 21-year-old white British man living in the south of England. He has few qualifications and is struggling to find a job. “I don’t really think about Brexit that much,” he told us. “I am not a political person, so I am not that bothered.”</p>
<p>In between these positions, there are also more nuanced views, with some of those who voted Leave admitting to nervousness about what will happen, or Remainers resigned to the result and pragmatic about the need to get on with Brexit and get a good deal. Much like the wider adult population, young people hold a wide range of views about Brexit.</p>
<h2>Aspirations and identities</h2>
<p>Most young people we spoke to thought Brexit was unlikely to affect their short-term and long-term aspirations. Many already had a clear plan about what they would like their career and life to look like, and they were largely optimistic that Brexit would not prevent them from achieving these goals. </p>
<p>Few reported feeling less European since the referendum, in part because few felt European in the first place. Most were also just as attached to and proud of Britain as they had been before the referendum. A minority, however, felt more proud of Britain for standing up for itself and a similar minority felt more ashamed of being British, believing the referendum result suggested Britain was not inclusive.</p>
<p>There were two groups for whom Brexit is having a clearer effect on their identity: young Europhiles – who had a stronger European identity and concrete plans to study and work abroad – and young people from ethnic minority backgrounds. For example, Maria, an 18-year-old first generation immigrant raised in London by eastern European parents, told us that after the referendum, she: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Felt like I had to be less European. All I heard was a lot of the reasons why people voted was because of immigrants… I think that kind of made me feel ‘wow’, I think I need to like emphasise that I’m British-British, and not even mention anything else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And this sense of exclusion was not limited to young people with a European heritage. Mariam, a 19-year-old young British-Asian woman living in south-east England, said that Brexit had made her feel “less, definitely less [British]. 100%”, adding: “Some people think if you are not white, you are not British. This is how I look at it, this is how I have experienced it.”</p>
<p>Although the young people we spoke to held a wide range of views about Brexit, we heard a palpable sense of resignation that nothing could be done to change the result. While there was a <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-voters-are-on-the-march-heres-how-to-keep-them-coming-back-for-more-84748">youth surge in voting</a> at the 2017 general election, a general sense of powerlessness to reverse the course of Brexit may end up reinforcing the disengagement of young people that has troubled British politics since the early 1990s.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Avril Keating benefits from funding from the ESRC (research grants ES/K001620/2 and ES/J019135/1). </span></em></p>New research shows that not all young people are totally devastated by the referendum result.Avril Keating, Director, Centre for Global Youth, UCL Institute of Education, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748552017-03-31T10:38:25Z2017-03-31T10:38:25ZWhy have there been so few protests against Brexit?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163297/original/image-20170330-15588-pu70j8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protestors on an anti-Brexit rally on March 25. </span> </figcaption></figure><p>According to some police estimates, which are rarely given to exaggeration, as many as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-bias-pro-remain-pro-brexit-coverage-lack-of-too-much-unite-for-europe-trigger-article-50-a7651191.html">100,000 people</a> marched across London on March 25 in support of the European Union, together with an estimated <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15181960.Hundreds_assemble_in_Edinburgh_to__march_for_Europe_/">1,000 to 1,500</a> in Edinburgh. The occasion was the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, but more significantly the demonstration took place just days before Theresa May’s UK government <a href="https://theconversation.com/article-50-triggered-heres-what-happens-now-74436">triggered</a> Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, starting the process of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. </p>
<p>The Leave camp won the referendum with a narrow majority of 51.9% of those who voted, but this translates into only 37.48% <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information">of the electorate</a>. Even though remainers are an even smaller part of the electorate, it might seem surprising to some that there have not been larger and more vigorous demonstrations against Brexit. </p>
<p>There were of course, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990">protests</a> outside the Westminster and Edinburgh parliaments in the days and weeks immediately after the referendum result in June 2016. Subsequently, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/03/pro-eu-protesters-join-march-for-europe-demos-around-uk">March for Europe</a> held on September 2, 2016 brought together thousands in London, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Oxford, Cambridge and Bristol. Yet since then, demonstrations have been infrequent and sparsely populated, even while the UK parliament was discussing the bill which allowed Article 50 to be triggered.</p>
<p>The contrast with the gigantic protests against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003, or even the recent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/news-blog/live/2017/feb/04/london-protest-against-donald-trump-travel-ban-live-coverage">demonstrations</a> which followed Donald Trump’s travel ban is palpable. Even though the character of the US presidency will have nothing like the direct impact on everyday life in the UK as leaving membership of the EU. </p>
<p>Why this disparity? I suggest there are five main reasons.</p>
<h2>Splits among Remainers</h2>
<p>The first reason involves divisions within the Remain camp, between two ultimately incompatible positions about the EU itself. One holds that the EU <a href="http://labourlist.org/2015/09/theres-nothing-left-wing-about-being-anti-eu/">is essentially</a> a beneficent institution which exists primarily to prevent war, uphold workers’ rights, defend the environment and ensure freedom of movement. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rich-ibbetson/eu-referendum_b_10526944.html">other</a> regards this as an illusion, and sees the EU instead as a means of imposing neoliberal austerity on small member states while maintaining its own racist barriers to refugees from outside the boundaries of “Europe”. For this group, voting to remain was a way to reject the racist, anti-migrant politics of UKIP and the Tory right which dominated the Leave campaigns – not a sign of positive support for the EU. They were the least likely of Remain voters take to the streets in protest against the result as this would be interpreted as support for the EU itself. </p>
<p>This fundamental division, about the very nature of the EU and the very different attitudes of Remainers towards it, is now likely to dominate the unfolding struggle over the form Brexit will take. </p>
<p>The second reason is that at least some opponents of Brexit accepted that, whatever their personal views, the vote was legitimately won and that it would be undemocratic to attempt to undo it. This is in stark contrast to the position of other Remain supporters, <a href="http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6355/remain_s_hatred_and_vitriol_following_brexit_vote">who have continued</a> to denounce Leave voters for their supposed ignorance, stupidity and racism. They have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/13/trump-election-means-britain-turn-against-brexit">argued</a> that the vote can be ignored and rerun until the “correct” result is achieved – a strategy for which there are several precedents in the history of the EU, such as in <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/referendum-in-denmark-second-chance-for-voters-to-get-it-right-voters-in-denmark-go-to-the-polls-2323503.html">Denmark</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5579684/Ireland-to-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html">Ireland</a>. Such a disregard for democratic outcomes may well have acted as a barrier to potential demonstrators simply because they did not want to be associated with it. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"846987711777067008"}"></div></p>
<h2>The left absent</h2>
<p>The third reason concerns the role of the left. Mass demonstrations have generally been organised by the revolutionary or radical left. Examples since the mid-1960s include the <a href="http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/20/1968-vietnam-solidarity-and-british-left">Vietnam Solidarity Campaign</a>, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/apr/20/popandrock.race">Anti-Nazi League/Rock against Racism</a>, the <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Uncollectable.html?id=yDrVAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y">Anti-Poll Tax Federation</a> and <a href="http://www.stopwar.org.uk/">Stop the War Coalition</a>. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/42550/Launch+of+united+left+campaign+to+leave+the+EU">overwhelming majority</a> of the far left was opposed to the EU and campaigned for what was christened “Lexit”.</p>
<p>The activists involved in Lexit excluded themselves from their normal role in mobilising opposition to hard-right positions. The Labour Party, which has vastly more members than the far left – particularly since the election of Jeremy Corbyn – could have picked up the slack. Yet, beyond the largely europhile Parliamentary Labour Party, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/jeremy-corbyn-could-transform-the-brexit-debate-but-does-he-want-to-57838">leader</a> and the many of the new mass membership were, at best, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-party-poll-eu-vote-leave-members-look-for-another-party-ukip-tories-latest-a7325581.html">deeply ambivalent</a> towards the EU and consequently unwilling or unable to take the lead in calling demonstrations.</p>
<h2>Fearful of attack</h2>
<p>The fourth concerns the people most directly affected by Brexit: the 2.9m EU citizens who live in the UK. The dominant, hard-right argument for Leave focused on this group, leading to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html">some being targeted</a> for verbal abuse and actual violence. With these levels of hostility it would likely have taken quite extraordinary levels of courage and persistence to demonstrate. Some EU citizens have nevertheless taken to the streets, but the pressure not to and therefore avoid drawing attention to themselves is intense.</p>
<p>The fifth reason is the pressure exercised by the right-wing, Brexit-supporting media, aimed at Remainers. Celebrities such as Kate Beckinsdale and Jamie Oliver who expressed their opposition <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1348325/pro-eu-celebrity-luvvies-like-kate-beckinsale-and-jamie-oliver-join-chorus-of-super-rich-remainers-bemoaning-brexit/">were ridiculed</a> as out-of-touch with everyday concerns. Those members of the judiciary charged with interpreting constitutional law were denounced in almost Stalinist terms by the Daily Mail as <a href="https://theconversation.com/enemies-of-the-people-mps-and-press-gang-up-on-the-constitution-over-high-court-brexit-ruling-68241">“enemies of the people”</a>. </p>
<p>If the wealthy and powerful could be subjected to this level of abuse, then what might be unleashed against ordinary citizens?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Davidson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Although thousands have taken to the streets, protests against Brexit have been muted.Neil Davidson, Lecturer in Sociology, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612292016-06-20T12:31:10Z2016-06-20T12:31:10ZVote Leave views of Europe’s future are not attractive – if you know your history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127310/original/image-20160620-8875-1ru7tv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whither Europe after Brexit?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/europe+future/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=384377665">Wiliam Potter</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the EU referendum, those urging Britons to vote to leave see two possible outcomes for Europe in the event of a Brexit. Either it would integrate further and become a superstate or it would fall apart, restoring a Europe of nation states. Both can’t be true. And when you take a historical perspective, neither would be in the UK’s interests.</p>
<p>Let’s start with integration. The <a href="https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027161740-SenseofSovereignity1991.pdf">longstanding fear</a> of many Brexiters is a European federal superstate. They <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_five_presidents_report_and_the_next_eu_treaty">cite</a> the European Commission’s “<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/five-presidents-report-completing-europes-economic-and-monetary-union_en">Five Presidents’ Report</a>” of last year as unsettling progress – it proposes deeper financial, fiscal and political union, chiefly in the eurozone, by 2025. Some in Vote Leave <a href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/02/28/economic-uncertainty-and-the-eu/">argue that</a> the departure of the eurosceptic British would make such deeper intergration and even a superstate more likely. </p>
<p>Any move by Britain to encourage this would run counter to five centuries of foreign policy. Britain has always been deeply intertwined with the continent in everything from politics to culture to religion. Hence it has been a longstanding policy goal to maximise influence there and prevent a single power dominating. </p>
<p>This was one reason Elizabeth I of England <a href="http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%20254%20elizabeth%20diplomacy%202.htm">supported</a> the Dutch protestants’ revolt in the 1580s against the king of Spain and Habsburg emperor, Philip II. It was equally behind Britain’s wars against <a href="http://www.louis-xiv.de/index.php?id=23">Louis XIV</a> and <a href="http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_napoleonic.html">Napoleon Bonaparte</a> of France; its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml">declaration of war</a> on Germany in 1914 to support Belgian neutrality; and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on">its refusal</a> to make peace with Hitler after France fell in 1940. Splendid isolation has rarely been judged a viable proposition. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127311/original/image-20160620-8856-1pqvghn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not quitters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigot44/17492665161/in/photolist-sDLtVc-8psCaQ-gGa64y-8ehe9F-maw7ar-rthwtX-qMTrZG-gascqn-5Z4FVu-qH7Bdz-4scdho-rbhKmm-fWujWw-fsbFa4-6bQ6D1-fA6zbg-d3GsAo-6bKWDv-9TFC7w-sadZhM-orXbVt-kzbz7e-9q9Ne1-oq1jsK-8yofaw-ka7V8Q-qstuoM-4sccA1-5m8co3-i75iib-8nxr6e-nXbuy7-5Fp8qo-weifm-5FEKPn-eANU4x-5FEKuZ-weic6-hVYK1L-3go5X-23Ct83-5FK4k5-5FEJPa-o5do4-8jn33y-5FEKd4-8WADFt-4scbKh-5zL9bb-HLqZry">Franck Berthelet</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In reality, a European superstate is a distant prospect. Notwithstanding a small core of federalists, European integration <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VJzdndGbO7wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=milward+european+rescue+of+the+nation+state&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii8Y_73bHNAhVLAsAKHTY_B9AQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=milward%20european%20rescue%20of%20the%20nation%20state&f=false">has primarily</a> been about strengthening its nation states through collective action. The UK has <a href="http://www.cvce.eu/en/recherche/unit-content/-/unit/02bb76df-d066-4c08-a58a-d4686a3e68ff/62cd6534-f1a9-442a-b6fb-0bab7c842180">not been the only state</a> to guard its sovereignty. This is why, for example, the idea of a European Defence Community with a single army was <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/edc.htm">too much</a> for the French in the 1950s – and why <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/plans-to-create-an-eu-army-kept-secret-from-voters/">rumours of new plans</a> for an EU army are unlikely to succeed either.</p>
<p>It seems far <a href="http://www.cer.org.uk/in-the-press/unnoticed-brexiteers-idea-eu-super-state-quietly-dying">more likely</a> the EU minus the UK would remain a prosaic supranational bloc built on nation states. From outside, it would be harder to maintain the influence that the UK has generally judged crucial.</p>
<h2>A Europe of nation states</h2>
<p>An alternative vision from leavers such as the UK justice secretary <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662384/EU-referendum-Brexit-Michael-Gove-speech-liberate-Europe-Brussels-Vote-Leave">Michael Gove</a> and UKIP leader <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/678138/Brexit-EU-referendum-trigger-end-Eropean-Union-Nigel-Farage">Nigel Farage</a> is that a Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU. Europe would then flourish as a patchwork of coexisting sovereign states, they argue. After even a cursory glance at 19th and 20th century European history, this looks hopelessly romantic. </p>
<p>Nineteenth-century Europe was a collection of nation states and empires. The nation state dominated in the west after <a href="http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-unification-of-italy-summary-timeline-leaders.html">Italian</a> and <a href="http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/unific.htm">German</a> unification in 1870 and 1871, while eastern Europe remained largely the preserve of multi-national empires such as the Ottoman and Austria-Hungary. </p>
<p>Economic cooperation certainly blossomed in that era. Between 1870 and 1914 – sometimes <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/globalization-and-history">described by historians</a> as the “first age of globalisation” – labour, capital and goods all moved freely enough. But there were limits. A free-trade honeymoon in the mid-century <a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/5293/discussions/130285/blog-brexit-free-trade-and-perils-history-imperial-global-forum">gave way</a> to protectionism in the 1880s. And while <a href="https://archive.org/details/greatillusionstu00angerich">some argued</a> in the pre-war years that economic interdependence had made conflict irrational, this made little difference in 1914. </p>
<p>What really underpinned peace by the early 20th century was the system of alliances between the great powers. Yet it struggled to contain their rival ambitions, not least those of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilhelm_kaiser_ii.shtml">Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany</a>. The crumbling Ottoman Empire let loose competing nationalisms in the Balkans. When Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip <a href="http://www.britannica.com/biography/Gavrilo-Princip">assassinated</a> the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28 1914, a showdown between Serbia and Austria-Hungary rapidly descended into the great war the alliances were intended to deter. </p>
<p>Yet the drive for a continent-wide state system based on national sovereignty reached its zenith after 1918. Led by Woodrow Wilson, the US president, the victorious allies applied the principle of “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/fourteen_points.shtml">national self-determination</a>” to eastern as well as western Europe – even if the patchwork of ethnicities meant compromises were necessary to build viable states. It meant unions such as Yugoslavia and large minority enclaves such as German-speaking Sudentenland in Czechoslovakia. Inter-state tensions and the potential for conflict were ever present. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127312/original/image-20160620-8889-1nepc2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Big four at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919: (L to R) David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigot44/17492665161/in/photolist-sDLtVc-8psCaQ-gGa64y-8ehe9F-maw7ar-rthwtX-qMTrZG-gascqn-5Z4FVu-qH7Bdz-4scdho-rbhKmm-fWujWw-fsbFa4-6bQ6D1-fA6zbg-d3GsAo-6bKWDv-9TFC7w-sadZhM-orXbVt-kzbz7e-9q9Ne1-oq1jsK-8yofaw-ka7V8Q-qstuoM-4sccA1-5m8co3-i75iib-8nxr6e-nXbuy7-5Fp8qo-weifm-5FEKPn-eANU4x-5FEKuZ-weic6-hVYK1L-3go5X-23Ct83-5FK4k5-5FEJPa-o5do4-8jn33y-5FEKd4-8WADFt-4scbKh-5zL9bb-HLqZry">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Inter-war Europe had only weak mechanisms to smooth things over. In place of the system of great-power alliances the new <a href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/league-of-nations/">League of Nations</a> pursued collective security and cooperation, though with limited power to bind its members. It proved too weak to prevent protectionism resurging in the 1920s or the rise of fascism. Great-power politics re-emerged and the continent plunged into an even bloodier war in 1939. </p>
<p>No wonder so many British and continental leaders since World War II have supported European integration. Winston Churchill <a href="http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html">spoke airily</a> of a “United States of Europe” in 1946. A Europe of sovereign nation states had proved a failure twice, and the second failure had been worse than the first. </p>
<h2>All in the past?</h2>
<p>Brexiters might argue Europe <a href="http://europe.newsweek.com/brexit-boris-johnson-david-cameron-security-nato-eu-457370">could now</a> return to separate sovereign states because its stability is underpinned by the American-designed international framework of the UN, NATO, IMF and World Trade Organisation that emerged after 1945. </p>
<p>None of these other organisations provides a specifically European system of cooperation, however. They are not designed to tackle the common problems of a small, densely populated and combustible continent. This is why successive US presidents, most recently <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr/">Barack Obama</a>, have generally supported the European project and UK participation. </p>
<p>When those who back Vote Leave conjure these competing visions of a European superstate or a patchwork of sovereign states, they are effectively offering the UK either impotence or instability in its own neighbourhood. Even if the more likely outcome is probably a diminished EU with the UK on the sidelines, let’s be clear: none of these three alternatives looks attractive for either the UK or the rest of Europe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61229/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Dilley is supported by an AHRC Early Career Fellowship, but this article reflects entirely his own views.
</span></em></p>Those who favour Brexit imply it would be followed either by a European superstate or the collapse of the EU. Here’s why neither is in UK’s interests.Andrew Dilley, Senior Lecturer, History, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608972016-06-14T12:59:28Z2016-06-14T12:59:28ZFact Check: do 89% of businesses really support Remain?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126181/original/image-20160610-29219-1v16oq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ready for my close up.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=business%20attitudes&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=216365722">Irina Braga</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p><em>Independent poll: 89% of businesses back staying in Europe.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#5V2t8bz1mzTk24zu.97">campaign claim</a></strong></p>
<p>Immigration and the economy have taken centre stage in the British EU referendum. The future economic performance of the UK in particular – its growth, job and wealth creation prospects – depends on how business fares. This helps explain why business attitudes to the referendum have regularly been published in the run-up. </p>
<p>The Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#vSBLftmwq0i1Jt5E.97">campaign relies on</a> one such survey in its campaign literature. Conducted by the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe (COBCOE), it <a href="http://www.cobcoe.eu/files/cobcoe-europe-member-poll-results-fa-aLS79E.pdf">found that</a> 89% of member businesses were opposed to a UK exit from the EU, while only 7% were in favour. The claim is <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-our-liberal-democrat-leaders-are-saying-about-the-eu-referendum-50868.html">regularly repeated</a> by voices on the Remain side as evidence of the economic damage that a Brexit would cause. So is it accurate?</p>
<p>In fact, it turns out that the survey does not include any UK businesses. Instead, it reflects the views of the members of a total of 38 national chambers of commerce in countries ranging from Austria to Israel to Ukraine. This appears to make it quite a strange survey for Remain to be relying on. </p>
<p>When you look at other business surveys, several things stand out. They too tend to back Remain – if a little less decisively – and the balance of opinion is much tighter with smaller companies than larger ones. The CBI’s <a href="http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/cbi-to-make-economic-case-to-remain-in-eu-after-reaffirming-strong-member-mandate/">survey in March</a> of nearly 800 UK companies found 84% backing Remain among large companies and 71% among smaller ones. </p>
<p>The British Chambers of Commerce <a href="http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/policy-maker/policy-reports-and-publications/bcc-eu-survey-business-vote-tightens-as-referendum-campaign-heads-to-the-finish-line.html">survey</a> of 2,200 members from May found 54% backed Remain compared to 37% against. The smallest businesses were more narrowly in favour, however. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/02/uk-small-businesses-are-evenly-split-on-brexit-poll-says">TNS survey</a> in June of more than 500 small and medium-sized companies found 38% backed Remain and 37% Leave. Yet a new <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-fishermen-want-out-of-the-eu-heres-why-60803">academic survey</a> of UK skippers and boat owners in the fishing industry <a href="https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/942753/skippers-want-out-of-eu-according-to-aberdeen-university-research/">found that</a> 92% favour a Brexit. This all raises interesting questions about the differences between various businesses. </p>
<h2>Scottish echoes</h2>
<p>During the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">Scottish independence referendum</a> of 2014, I conducted <a href="http://www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/blogs/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2016/01/Working-Paper-Referendum-CEO-Guide-Kelly-and-MacKay-08-January-2015.pdf">extensive research</a> into business attitudes. Despite close to 50 referendums on various issues across Europe since 2011 alone, there has been very little systematic research of this kind into business opinion. </p>
<p>I found business attitudes to an independence referendum are generally driven by a small number of variables: where the business is headquartered; the ownership structure; the jurisdiction where the balance of its trade takes place; and the most advantageous place for foreign direct investment by multinationals. Having applied the same framework to the EU referendum, it turns out the same variables apply. </p>
<p>Business leaders of UK-headquartered listed companies, or multinationals with subsidiary headquarters in the UK with significant trade in the EU, have been the most perplexed by a vote to leave and most willing to relocate business investment elsewhere. That is why 36 heads of FTSE 100 companies <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35636838">signed an open letter</a> arguing for a Remain vote, and 95% of members of the British American Business Association <a href="http://www.babc.org/public/docs/BATI2016_Guide_WEB.pdf">oppose</a> a Brexit. </p>
<p>Heads of privately-owned companies with comparable EU trading interests also oppose a Brexit, though without the same shareholder pressures they tend to be more willing to soldier on with UK investments if it comes to pass. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/18/richard-branson-says-eu-exit-would-be-saddest-day-for-britain-european-union-virgin">Think about</a> Sir Richard Branson and the Virgin group, for instance. </p>
<p>People who run private companies whose trade is more global are either ambivalent or in favour of leaving – if they can identify a specific benefit for their business. Lord Bamford, the chairman of building group JCB who <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36485985">came out</a> in favour of Leave recently, is a prime example of the latter. Companies of this sort are a minority, however. </p>
<p>Business leaders most in favour of Leave are the ones who mainly trade at home and see a cost advantage or a greater ability to influence the political process after separation. Tim Martin of pub chain Wetherspoons <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/jd-wetherspoon-interview-tim-martin-eu-referendum-democracy-brexit-imf-bee-mats-2016-6">fits into</a> this category. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>It appears misleading for the Remain side to be using the COBCOE survey, though business surveys do generally lean towards the same point of view. Bigger businesses are pro-Remain – unless their sales are primarily either global or UK-focused – while small and medium-sized businesses trading predominantly at home take a different view. </p>
<p>Sectors with a strong view one way or the other are driven by their own motivations – for instance UK fishermen tend to feel unfairly constrained by fishing quotas allocated by the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm">European Common Fisheries Policy</a>. </p>
<p>On the whole, however, the business case for Brexit doesn’t appear to add up. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Michael Danson, professor of enterprise policy, Heriot-Watt University</em></p>
<p>This piece has identified that, as with many of the claims made by all sides in the EU referendum, Britain Stronger in Europe has been rather fast and loose with presenting COBCOE’s statistics. Nevertheless it is believable that firms successfully doing business internationally would support the status quo, while those struggling at home may have different concerns or else reflect <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">the divisions</a> within the country as a whole.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good for who?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=EPT7E9qi4jCtGcbpzDvHBQ&searchterm=business%20opinion&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=284750732">Mad Dog</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some questions in business surveys are poorly posed or ambiguous – does “good for business” mean for my firm, for trade, or for the economy as a whole? Are these mutually compatible, or is what is good for a multinational contrary to the needs of smaller companies? As with the Scottish referendum, companies’ opinions seem dominated by self-interest, which never necessarily means in all our interests. </p>
<p>Apart from misleading us over business opinion with the COBCOE survey, Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#kQ5lUsDTLMQvRdir.97">also promotes</a> many campaign slides that play up the worst case scenario in the short-term forecasts of banks, treasuries and international bodies – all of which undermine the objectivity of its message. These contrast different futures under the same free-market regime rather than presenting an alternative inclusive EU agenda that could lead to a different future for the continent. </p>
<p><em>This article originally said that the BCC’s survey had micro-businesses backing Brexit. This has now been corrected.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60897/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brad MacKay receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council in the Future of the UK and Scotland programme, but the views expressed here are entirely his own. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Danson is on the board of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, but the views in this piece are entirely his own.</span></em></p>The Remain campaign cites this survey as proof of the economic benefits of staying in the EU. Here’s the story behind the numbers.Brad MacKay, Professor in Strategic Management, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609082016-06-13T11:40:48Z2016-06-13T11:40:48ZThe truth about migrants and the NHS<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126339/original/image-20160613-29238-xigwuk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=doctors%20waiting%20room&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=148769519">Robert Kneschke/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Announcing her decision to defect from Vote Leave to the Remain campaign, Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston claimed: <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comment-leave-s-health-claims-are-shameful-x75m2hm2m">“If you meet a migrant in the NHS, they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue”</a>. How right she is. </p>
<p>Migrants fall into two groups: those who are visiting temporarily, and those who are resident. People from the first group who use the NHS have been dubbed “medical tourists”, taking advantage of free health care. But such visitors now <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-worth-making-health-tourists-pay-for-nhs-care-52607">have to pay</a> for the care they receive. </p>
<p>Visa and immigration applicants from outside the European Economic Area have to pay an annual “health surcharge” if they plan to stay in the country for more than six months. Those staying less than six months have to pay 150% of the cost of hospital care. EU visitors have to show their European Health Insurance Cards when using the NHS so that their home countries can be billed for their care. These arrangements mean that visitors are no more a drain on the NHS than they are on restaurants or West End theatres: they’re paying for the services they receive.</p>
<p>Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the <a href="http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/80468/Eurohealth13_1.pdf">“healthy migrant effect”</a>. </p>
<p>This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for <a href="http://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/working-paper-series/working-paper-005">outpatient referrals</a>. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. </p>
<p>Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/free-movement-and-the-eu-referendum">higher employment rates</a> than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work. </p>
<p>If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS. </p>
<p>So immigrants to the UK are more likely to be healthy and more likely to be working. The opposite may be the case for emigrants from the UK. Around 1.2m Britons live in other <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/free-movement-and-the-eu-referendum">EU countries</a> – mainly in Spain, Ireland, France and Germany. While some of these emigrants have moved to work, many have chosen to retire overseas. And retirees are more likely to make use of the health system, simply because they are older. On balance, then, the UK benefits from “healthy immigrants”, while exporting “unhealthy emigrants” for other health systems to deal with.</p>
<h2>Are you likely to be treated by a migrant?</h2>
<p>Not only are migrants more likely to working, they are very likely to be working in the NHS. According to statistics collected by the <a href="http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a>, the NHS is more reliant on “foreign trained” staff than are other EU countries (see figure). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2014, 28% of doctors working in the UK were trained abroad, compared with an average of just 9% across the other countries. Thirteen percent of nurses are foreign trained, compared with 2% elsewhere. Some of these are trained outside the EU, but <a href="http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp">11% of doctors</a> and <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-nhs-staff/">4% of nurses</a> working in the NHS are from other European Economic Area countries (EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).</p>
<p>The Public Accounts Committee has been very critical of <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/nhs-staff-numbers-15-16/">evident failures</a> in NHS workforce planning. This has meant that overseas recruitment has been essential to fill shortfalls in staffing. Leaving the EU will make the situation worse, particularly in shortage specialties such as emergency care and general practice, severely constraining our ability to recruit overseas staff.</p>
<p>The Leave campaign claims that Brexit will allow us greater border control, above and beyond the higher entry barriers the UK already has by not being part of the Schengen area. These restrictions are likely to reduce immigration from other EU countries, which may reduce use of the NHS, but will also reduce NHS income received directly from such users or via taxation.</p>
<p>More worryingly, Brexit would reduce access to a pool of staff that we need to draw from to address NHS workforce shortages. There also may be adverse consequences for UK emigrants and holidaymakers, if the other EU countries retaliate by making it more difficult to retire abroad or ask us to surrender our European Health Insurance Cards.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Bloor has received project funding from the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme and the European Union. The views expressed are her own. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street has recived project funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, and the European Union. The views expressed are his own.</span></em></p>Migrants have been accused of ‘clogging up the NHS’. But where would the NHS be without them?Karen Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of YorkAndrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608682016-06-10T15:51:46Z2016-06-10T15:51:46ZWomen-dominated EU debate a welcome break from Tory boys’ brigade<p>Much of the coverage of the EU referendum campaign so far has been like reporting on the common room squabbles of a boys’ school. So it was a welcome relief when <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-09/itv1-eu-referendum-debate-analysis-extraordinary-personal-attacks-and-a-coordinated-campaign-from-leave/">ITV’s EU referendum debate</a> on June 9 offered a sharp rejoinder to the overwhelmingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-men-and-a-vote-eu-referendum-is-turning-into-a-tory-boys-own-story-59853">male-dominated</a> campaign. </p>
<p>ITV’s fielding of five women and one man was a significant attempt to challenge the dominance of male voices ahead of the critical vote on the UK’s EU membership on June 23. </p>
<p>Analysis of the media coverage of the EU referendum conducted by my colleagues and I shows the marked extent to which women have been marginal so far, <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/media-coverage-eu-referendum-report-2/">accounting for just 18%</a> of those quoted by the media about the campaign.</p>
<p>The Remain campaign fielded an all-female line-up with Labour shadow business secretary Angela Eagle, Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd and Scotland’s SNP first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. The pro-Brexit Leave camp was represented by the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, his fellow Conservative energy minister Andrea Ladsom, and Labour’s Gisela Stuart.</p>
<p>The encounter was anticipated by commentators as an antidote to the male-dominated debate and a deliberate attempt to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/04/all-female-team-is-remain-campaigns-secret-weapon-to-beat-boris/">neutralise Johnson</a> and, in doing so, to appeal to women voters. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QrVJXq1gmF4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Team dynamics</h2>
<p>Remainers Sturgeon and Eagle both successfully advocated their own party’s agendas during the debate. Eagle strongly defended workers’ protections offered by the EU, such as the limit on working hours, right to paid maternity leave and holiday pay. Sturgeon sought to play up the idea of the EU as a community as well as a market, and was the only campaigner to explicitly champion the benefits of immigration.</p>
<p>Viewers might have been forgiven for not knowing which party Gisela Stuart represents in parliament, as she seemed content to stick to the centre-right agenda of the economy and immigration that has <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/media-coverage-eu-referendum-report-1/">dominated coverage of the referendum</a>. This perception was reinforced when Eagle criticised Stuart for being prepared to risk manufacturing jobs by advocating leaving the EU. </p>
<p>For their part, the Leave campaigners appeared to be much more coordinated. They were seen conferring with one another more than once and all of them frequently repeated the phrase “take back control” – the campaign mantra. </p>
<p>There was plenty of animosity between the two sides. Sturgeon, Eagle and Rudd all directed personal attacks on Johnson’s credibility, integrity and his track record, with Sturgeon branding a potential Prime Minister Johnson as a “pretty horrifying prospect”. He responded by accusing the Scottish first minister of negative campaigning, and contradicting her commitment to making a positive case for remaining in the EU.</p>
<h2>Appealing to women</h2>
<p>One direct question from the audience asked the panel whether women and workers would generally be better off inside or outside the EU. Unfortunately, this led to a largely superficial engagement with the question. All the participants were at pains to affirm their commitment to equal rights, but it was the sole man on the platform <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/08/boris-johnson-women-university-husband">who had the most to prove</a>.</p>
<p>Stuart, Leadsom and Rudd asserted throughout that they were speaking “as a mother” – a naked attempt to show empathy with women viewers. But this can be a risky strategy for female politicians to adopt as drawing attention to gender can reinforce stereotypes.</p>
<p>Although the debate was a welcome interruption to the male-dominated discussion we have witnessed so far, it is possible that by not including other men on the platform, it will be remembered for the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36491647">number of personalised attacks on Johnson</a> rather than really breaking the monopoly that Tory men have on the campaign.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60868/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emily Harmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But will it have swayed women voters?Emily Harmer, Lecturer in Communication and Media Studies, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603902016-06-03T14:31:54Z2016-06-03T14:31:54ZEU referendum: the positive case for voting Remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125036/original/image-20160602-23302-mdnriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enough scaremongering. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=vote%20remain&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=392252626">nito</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Leave side in the British EU referendum campaign <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-campaign-to-stay-in-the-eu-is-project-fear-says-boris-johnson-a6903216.html">has consistently accused</a> its opponents of scaremongering. To be fair, the Remain side has good reasons for expressing concerns about Brexit. </p>
<p>Elsewhere I have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/23/economic-reality-brexit-eu-referendum-unicorn-fantasy">argued that</a> the economic costs to the UK of leaving the EU would be very significant over both the medium and long run. What makes the Leave side’s argument so weak is that it has not articulated a coherent and realistic vision of what life outside the EU would mean for the UK. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1185&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Robert Schuman.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-19000-2453,_Robert_Schuman.jpg">Bundersarchive</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we should also recognise the important and positive role the EU and its predecessor institutions have played in enhancing peace and prosperity for the UK and the whole continent in the last 60 years or so. </p>
<p>The then French foreign minister Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the project, argued in his landmark <a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration/index_en.htm">Schuman declaration</a> of 1950 that the goal should be to make war between historic rivals France and Germany “not just unthinkable, but materially impossible”. </p>
<p>The political leaders of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:xy0022">European Coal and Steel Community</a> of 1951 and the <a href="http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm">European Economic Community</a> of 1957 envisioned gradual political integration founded on economic solidarity and well-being. As made clear in the preamble of the <a href="http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm">Treaty of Rome</a> which established the EEC, they sought “to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe…” </p>
<p>The treaty referred to the need to “guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition” and to ensure “harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions”. As the Schuman declaration explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Europe’s folly</h2>
<p>The difficulty for the EU is that it abandoned this approach of placing the interests of its people ahead of the interests of its institutions. Some of this was well-intentioned, if rather unquestioning. </p>
<p>The EU created a single currency without the fiscal union and institutions to manage the growing imbalances in member states’ finances and trading positions, albeit in an era where global financial crises were seen as very unlikely. The difficulties this has caused in countries such as Greece has <a href="https://theconversation.com/greece-a-bad-deal-for-everyone-44627">called into question</a> the democratic nature of the EU’s institutions. </p>
<p>This is an area where Leave campaigners do quite a bit of scaremongering of their own. They falsely conflate leaving the EU with avoiding future <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36029860">problems of the eurozone</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/vote-leave-prejudice-turkey-eu-security-threat">future EU enlargement</a>. </p>
<p>The UK government’s renegotiation with the EU, which would be triggered by a Remain vote, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-best-of-both-worlds-the-united-kingdoms-special-status-in-a-reformed-european-union">addressed</a> the first issue: the evolution of the single market and other decision-making within the EU will not now be driven by the eurozone economies, but will involve all 28 member states. The UK will also not be liable for any eurozone bailouts. As for the accession of any new member, it requires agreement from all existing EU members. </p>
<p>Yet a more powerful positive case can be made for reform which returns the EU to its early principles. Institutions matter greatly for economic outcomes. In their <a href="http://whynationsfail.com">pioneering book</a>, Why Nations Fail, the economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson show the importance of a strong social consensus in driving economic outcomes. </p>
<p>Their arguments are particularly relevant in a supranational grouping like the EU, where you need more inclusive institutions to mitigate the risk of continued social and economic progress being undermined by conflict. Indeed, I would argue this is precisely what the fathers of the EEC had in mind. </p>
<h2>Blueprint for reform</h2>
<p>So what might a future EU look like? One can begin to sketch out three major themes. First, dealing with the eurozone crisis. The <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf">Five Presidents’ report</a> of 2015 sees deeper fiscal and economic union as the only answer for the countries within the eurozone to overcome the imbalances which threaten the euro. </p>
<p>Yet a group of economists <a href="http://voxeu.org/article/new-cepr-report-new-start-eurozone-dealing-debt">has suggested</a> you could avoid this further erosion of sovereignty in the short term by restructuring members’ sovereign debt. In tandem, you would reduce the exposure of eurozone banks to this debt and strengthen the existing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19870747">European Stability Mechanism</a>, the agency set up to lend money to struggling members and their banks. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pheeep!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=DRBhU7P7OPlfATuBfpBH8w&searchterm=red%20card%20yellow%20card&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=144630614">bikeriderlondon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second change should be to give national parliaments a greater voice in future decision-making. The Cameron government renegotiations include the so-called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471248">“red card” procedure</a>. This enables a group of 16 national parliaments to force a review of proposed EU legislation on the grounds it would be better handled at national level. This is tougher on the EU than the existing <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/subsidiarity_en.htm">“orange card” and “yellow card”</a> procedures since it has a reaction deadline of 12 weeks as opposed to eight and introduces the possibility of the legislation being dropped altogether as opposed to merely amended. </p>
<p>“Red card” could further be extended beyond its current restricted parameters, while the threshold could be lowered from the current 16 parliament/55% majority to the same 35% level as the Council of Ministers’ <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/">blocking minority vote</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, a Remain vote could provide a platform for a more flexible union. It is not uncommon for countries in Europe to delegate different functions to regional or devolved tiers of government – for example in Spain, Italy and the UK itself. The UK has granted devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for instance. In Italy some regions have statutes (“regioni a statuto speciale”) which grant them particular legislative and financial autonomy. A similar multi-level approach could be taken for the EU, with groups of countries adopting different levels of integration from other neighbours within the union. </p>
<p>The UK could play a major and important role in reforming the EU’s institutions from the inside. By voting Leave and sitting on the sidelines, it would be unable to influence these important debates and yet would still be affected by the economic spillover in a continent we will always belong to. It’s an argument for remaining that has nothing to do with fear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anton Muscatelli is expressing these views in an entirely personal capacity. </span></em></p>There is good reason to fear Brexit, but voting to stay in the EU is also a chance to restore the vision of the founding fathers.Anton Muscatelli, Principal and Vice Chancellor, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/590382016-05-12T07:52:05Z2016-05-12T07:52:05ZFact Check: 790,000 new jobs by 2030 if UK remains in EU?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121627/original/image-20160508-2513-1cfux2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Which way best?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=WLIATPIJRQN-SqOzb4rSPA&searchterm=new%20jobs&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=329573831">Delpixel</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Remaining in Europe will create an extra 790,000 UK jobs by the time these kids grow up, so whatever they want to be, they will have the best opportunities to get on in life if we stay in the EU.</em></p>
<p><strong>Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBvUW3ryS9Y">ad campaign</a></strong></p>
<p>This prediction, which comes from <a href="http://www.cebr.com/reports/britain-stronger-in-europe/">a report</a> by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), published last October, assumes something which may never happen – namely that the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-european-single-market/2010-to-2015-government-policy-european-single-market">European Single Market</a> will be completed. The CEBR’s broader claim is that the EU’s current project to complete the single market in areas such as transport, tourism, energy and online trade will lead to increased UK GDP of €275 billion (£218 billion). The report translates this into the 790,000 jobs. </p>
<p>The trouble is that many of the changes are likely to be resisted by the public because they will cost jobs – initially at least – particularly in sectors that have already suffered over the past few decades, such as energy. To realise the further integration involved, we would need to see a significant change in the <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">national psyche</a>. If we managed this, we would still be at a disadvantage compared to other EU countries because the benefits depend on the free movement of labour. The fact that the UK is not within the <a href="http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-countries-list/">Schengen area</a> or the eurozone makes these difficult to realise. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KBvUW3ryS9Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Even then, the savings are only of direct benefit to the profit margins of the companies that manage to survive the increased competition. Completing the single market won’t benefit workers as such. Reducing the number of “national” producers across 28 member states to allow the strongest companies to freely expand means redundancies as duplicated jobs are removed. This is similar to what has already happened in the EU. Over the last 25 years, under the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:xy0026">Maastricht Treaty</a>, there has been job creation in the UK but the labour market has been hollowed out at the same time. We <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780230392540">have lost</a> traditional craft and manufacturing jobs to more competitive EU neighbours, while our market-oriented approach and poorer employment protection <a href="http://bit.ly/27fQOu5">led to</a> employers generating lots of low-paid services jobs. </p>
<p>To ensure a benefit from completing the single market to the population of the UK as a whole, profits from the companies who were benefiting would need to be reinvested for the common good. This would require a clear strategic plan for the economy, as opposed to just leaving it to market demand. We would recommend an apprenticeship system that led to sustainable careers, paralleling <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work-scotland/our-work-scotland/research-scotland/modern-apprenticeships">similar schemes</a> in the Nordic countries, Switzerland and Germany. But even then, these schemes have been established for decades and are strongly culturally embedded. </p>
<p>It would help if Britain were closer to the <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp">Nordic social model</a>, where there is greater empowerment within the workforce and wages are at a reasonable level. This means that employers have to invest in their labour, and apprenticeships are an important part of the picture. The UK stands out <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics">as having</a> one of the largest gender pay gaps in the EU15, and it <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/General%20Documents/Proceedings_v2.pdf">clear that</a> the most successful economies not only have wage equality but also high levels of union representation and collective bargaining. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121628/original/image-20160508-2551-2841u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The apprentice (and the other one).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=WLIATPIJRQN-SqOzb4rSPA&searchterm=new%20jobs&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=329573831">Phovoir</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>None of this is an argument for leaving the EU. If the UK did so, it would take an awfully long time to put in place new trade agreements and the impact on the economy in the interim would be catastrophic. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Realising 790,000 jobs from continued EU membership by 2030 depends on completion of the European Single Market. Achieving that depends on getting a deal past the eurosceptic UK public and converting economic growth into jobs with a major strategic plan. It is certainly not as simple as saying that the jobs will come if we vote to remain on June 23. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Nigel Driffield, Professor of International Business, University of Warwick</em> </p>
<p>I largely concur with the comments. The essential premise of the argument is one around trade creation. At present, particularly in public procurement and infrastructure projects, the EU is some way off completing the single market. While the spirit of the single market is that equal opportunities are afforded to all EU member states when firms are bidding for such contracts, in practice there is sufficient wiggle room to allow governments to emphasise regional development or other strategic priorities when allocating contracts. </p>
<p>There is a <a href="http://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/do-eu-procurement-rules-discriminate-against-uk-and-scottish-construction-interests/">view that</a> the UK is somewhat “fairer” on this say than Germany, such that German firms win UK contracts but seldom the reverse. This however is a feature of the austerity and efficiency that is emphasised in UK procurement rather than anyone else not playing by the rules.</p>
<p>But as the comment also notes, trade creation implies a degree of trade competition, and there will doubtless be some “losers” – some UK firms will gain from further moves to a single market, while others lose out to EU competitors. This I assume is the reference to the job losses, and the degree of migration that might occur. When steel plants closed in Scotland and steel workers moved to Northampton in search of work, this was seen as normal, but for trade creation to yield benefits in full this requires, as the author notes, movement of labour across the EU. In many countries this is seen as problematic at the present time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Danson is on the board of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, but the views in this piece are entirely his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Driffield receives funding from ESRC, Leverhulme Trust, OECD, UNCTAD, European Commission DG Regio. He is an inactive member of the labour party and a member of the UCU. The views expressed in this piece are entirely his own. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Abigail Marks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>According to Team Remain, there’s a jobs bonanza around the corner if the UK stays in the union.Abigail Marks, Professor of Work and Employment Studies, Heriot-Watt UniversityMike Danson, Professor of Enterprise Policy, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.